<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

><<
>Robin, you’re right. But I’ve never rated the poets you mention as
poets
>anyway.  Great prose writers, yes.
>>>
>
>Gosh, Jeffrey, how admirable to see the spirit of Matthew Arnold's
dismissal
>of Pope as a masterpiece of prose still alive and well!
>
>Now I know where to go to find the spirit of the current zeitgeist
>incarnated.  And just as Arnold was so right in abolishing such a mass
of
>writing as irrelevant to poetry, and leaving only a few sprigs
>retrospectively illuminated by the bonfire created by the Romantic
movement,
>confidently and prophetically predicting that in a hundred years time,
no
>one would read anything *other than the Romantics (and those few
writers
>before them who palely foreshadowed their coming), so I'm sure that
you will
>be proved equally right.
>
>Robin
>
>
>
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:49:27 -0500, Robin Hamilton
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>><<
>>The only rule I have is that a poem should not be a short story, or
>>vignette. Everything else is allowed.
>>>>
>>
>>Oops -- there goes every single Browning dramatic monologue.  And
>Chaucer
>>...  For starters ...
>>
>>The demolition derby would extend as far back as Archilochus.  Lucky
>Homer
>>wrote such a long text (or texts), otherwise the very foundations of
>Western
>>Literature would be trembling in their ... foundations.
>>
>><<
>>“You systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy
you
>>find in various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps
>>because it allows you to happily free-associate.”
>>
>>I think most people free-associate at some point when reading
poetry.
>I
>>always thought this was the point of poetic language—to allow for
>this.
>>Poetry that precludes such an act, in my view, is not poetry.
>>>>
>>
>>"My name is Ostentatious, King of Kings.  Look on my works in a
>strictly
>>post-modernist subjective fashion, or else."
>>
>>As Shelby might have said in her well-known 14 line vignette.  Or
was
>it
>>Humpty Dumpty?  Pound (if one may be allowed such an appeal to
>authority)
>>said that poetry should be *better written* than prose, not simply
>vaguer.
>>
>>Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:48:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff,  I think once again we've reached an impasse.
>>>    You have very specific, lexical rules for determining the quality of
>a
>>>poem, and yet seem to me often tone deaf to, or just uninterested
>in,
>>other
>>>elements that I consider equally or sometimes more significant.
You
>>>systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you
find
>>in
>>>various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps because
it
>>>allows you to happily free-associate. Stuff you're not interested in
>you
>>>refer to as "technique" and as merely "formal", by which I take you
to
>>mean
>>>inessential or secondary. I've tried on more than this occasion to
>>suggest
>>>why I find these criteria reductive and unhelpful, but you only seem
>to
>>>understand a small portion of what I'm saying. Otherwise I can't
see
>>why you
>>>should need to instruct me with comments like "Bad poetry can
>rhyme
>>also you
>>>know", adding again that "the presence of technique shouldn't
always
>>be the
>>>deciding factor for quality". "Technique" per se doesn't really
interest
>>me,
>>>as I've already said  - even the term bores me though I guess it
>could
>>be
>>>resuscitated - and I'm quite aware lots of bad poetry rhymes.
>>>
>>>  No need to apologize for your assumption that "simple, non-
avant-
>>garde
>>>language" would please me. But to clarify it's not just that I've
never
>>>stated such a preference: I've never had it. Neither now - nor in the
>>past.
>>>(The poets I began doing some soon-abandoned, academic work on
>>were John
>>>Berryman then Hart Crane, neither of whom write what I would
>>consider
>>>"simple" language. The poets I've written on at some slight length
>>over the
>>>last years have been Montale and Dante, again far from simple,
>>though you
>>>could find some lines here and there that are powerfully so. Still
>more
>>>recently I've translated and written briefly on Valerio Magrelli whose
>>>language is often deceptively simple, in other words achieving
>>complex
>>>effects with plain language, though, again, some of his poems
>employ
>>a
>>>formidably technical vocabulary. These last months I've been
>>translating the
>>>Mexican poet David Huerta whose poems are densely metaphoric
and
>>>linguistically complex. Excuse this biographical detour, but it's
>>>frustrating to be so consistently misconstrued. I'm only guessing
>>these
>>>misunderstandings arise because you consider me a "mainstream"
>>writer - and
>>>because you think you know exactly what that makes me.)
>>>
>>>   Because I don't subscribe at all to the rules which you apply to
>poet
>>>after poet, I feel quite at liberty to like and enjoy many whose
>>language
>>>would appear to you "lexically" plain or dull.
>>>
>>>Jamie
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:56 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>
>>>
>>>“Since you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose,
I'd
>>>have thought these things might have interested you more.”
>>>
>>>My point in such comparisons is to point out the contrast between
>the
>>>lexical differences rather than the formal ones. Bad poetry can
rhyme
>>>also you know, so the presence of technique shouldn’t always be
the
>>>deciding factor for quality.
>>>
>>>“Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>>>schmaltzy.”
>>>
>>>And you didn’t Armitage’s poem?!
>>>
>>>“Speaking of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-
>>>garde language" would please me? I don't think I've ever stated
>such a
>>>preference.”
>>>
>>>Perhaps not expressly, but your vigorous defense of the Armitage
>>poem,
>>>here, and, at other times, mainstream poetry in general has led me
>to
>>>believe this.  If I’m wrong, my apologies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:01:08 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeff,
>>>>  I fear you haven't really considered my point about technique -
>that
>>>sound
>>>>and rhythm are not decorative extras for a poem but integral to it.
>>>Since
>>>>you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd
>have
>>>thought
>>>>these things might have interested you more. As for the poem's
>>>imagery, I've
>>>>already said why I think it works.
>>>>   Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>>>schmaltzy. It
>>>>is not at all on a similar theme and it's linguistically inept, though
>>>>despite his reverential mention of Wordswoth and Browning "who
>all
>>>seem to
>>>>be saying the same thing" I don't suppose he'd think it was a
>poem.
>>>Speaking
>>>>of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-garde
>>>language" would
>>>>please me? I don't think I've ever stated such a preference.
>>>>Jamie
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:11 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jamie, technique in itself does not make a poem. It is the
>>combination
>>>>of that with imagery, allusion, metonymy, a certain mystery, etc.
>The
>>>>Armitage poem has little of the latter aspects. That’s why I am
>>>>criticising it. I find the poem’s sentiments and execution of them
>>one-
>>>>dimensional.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to hear a better rendition of a similar theme then
listen
>>to
>>>>Clifford T. Ward’s song“Home Thoughts from Abroad” which does it
>>>>better, in simple, non-avant-garde language (which should please
>>>you).
>>>>Here is a link to it on YouTube:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9G0ENZJLI8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:49:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeff,
>>>>>   I'm not sure why what I've written should seem " mostly
>technical
>>>>points"
>>>>>or exactly what it would mean if they were.
>>>>>   Surely technique, in which sound-effects play a large part,
>should
>>>be
>>>>>relevant in describing why it's a poem rather than "perhaps,
good
>>>prose
>>>>>fiction" as you call it. I've also mentioned a complex of imagery
>>that
>>>is
>>>>>tightly worked, and to spell out a bit more what I called the
>>vaporous
>>>>>elements in the poem, the 'st' sounds which begin with "missed"
>>>>(homophone
>>>>>'mist'), which leads to 'steam' in the next line, then is heard
again
>>in
>>>>>just, dust, lipstick, lost, upstairs, understanding, lipstick,
>>>>>stowed...just
>>>>>to take one thread of sound through the poem (and there are
>>>others) -
>>>>>suggest to me that Armitage has, even at this very early stage
of
>>his
>>>>>writing an acoustic sense that can be a central part of the way
we
>>>>hear a
>>>>>whole  poem - rather than a mere technical point, or even
as "the
>>>>measure of
>>>>>poetic accomplishment" which you bring out of nowhere. What
I'd
>>>>argue is
>>>>>that these are effects, including the rhythmic ones which (I
agree
>>>with
>>>>>Robin) are a marked and positive aspect of Armitage's work, that
>>>>make a flat
>>>>>paraphrase an utterly insufficient means of describing (and
>>>>intentionally
>>>>>negating) the poem. This poem or any other. It seems to me
that
>>>your
>>>>>obsessive concentration on 'empirical markers' means you
ignore a
>>>>whole
>>>>>range of other features integral to a poem.
>>>>>  (Your Jacket article makes it clear, as I'd guessed all along,
that
>>>your
>>>>>zealotry on behalf of this term "empirical" is deeply indebted to
>>>>Easthope,
>>>>>in particular to his dim and philistine reading of Edward
Thomas's
>>>>>'Aldlestrop'. But perhaps we oughtn't to get into that again.)
>>>>>Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:23 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jamie, these seem mostly technical points you like about the
>poem.
>>>>But
>>>>>the poem is still like a thousand other poems expressing similar
>>>>>sentiments. It is, perhaps, good prose fiction writing; the sort
>that
>>is
>>>>>esteemed in some creative writing classes, but is this to be
>>>considered
>>>>>the measure of poetic accomplishment?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:55:09 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a poem written when Armitage, I'm guessing, was 25, or
>>>younger.
>>>>>There's less fizz and word play in it than in many of the poems
of
>>his
>>>>>first book: it's quieter and maybe not that ambitious. That said,
I
>>like
>>>>>the vaporous sweep of the poem from its first image of
>>>>>what's "missed...by moments" , the steam of the "just-boiled
>>kettle"
>>>>to
>>>>>the final images of "the air, still hung with spores of your
>>hairspray;/
>>>>>body-heat stowed in the crumpled duvet."
>>>>>>    The lines:
>>>>>>  "and in this space we have worked and paid for
>>>>>>   we have found ourselves and lost each other"
>>>>>>stand out for me, and I think will have "cost" something to
>write.
>>>>>>   Its handling of the pentametre looks to me more
>>>than "adequately"
>>>>>skillful, as does the subtle "st" and "sp" sound-patterning that
>runs
>>>>>through it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   It's easy to make a crushing equivalence between the
>domestic
>>>>and
>>>>>the bourgeois, but most of us live our lives in domestic settings
>>and
>>>>>interiors, and I see no dishonour in their inclusion in a poem. As
>>>both a
>>>>>love poem and a poem about a relationship in crisis, I think it
>has a
>>>>>kind of tenderness and integrity.
>>>>>>  (I doubt, though, that this account will tear Robin away from
>his
>>>>>admiration for David's post and the "specific points" he has
>>>somewhere
>>>>>found in his and Mark's dismissals.)
>>>>>>Jamie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>  From: Mark Weiss
>>>>>>  To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:11 PM
>>>>>>  Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  And aren't paid for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  At 06:02 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     "How's that?"
>>>>>>    I'd say it did quite well on the nastiness scale.
>>>>>>    Though it doesn't distinguish itself from 20,000 other bits
>>>>>of "criticism" posted every day that cost nothing to write.
>>>>>>    Jamie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>    To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>    Sent: Tuesday, 16 February, 2010 22:51:43
>>>>>>    Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Shall I try? Probably 20,000 poems a day are posted or
>>>published.
>>>>>Most are skillful and nothing more. Most take no risks
whatsoever.
>>>>Most
>>>>>want to be liked. Most are crashingly boring. This is one of
those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The problem is, this sort of waste makes it harder to fight
>>>through
>>>>>to find the good stuff, the stuff that's cost the poet something
to
>>>write
>>>>>and that will cost the reader something to read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    How's that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    At 05:46 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      >It's adequate. Could I be nastier?
>>>>>>      I dunno, Mark. Could you be?
>>>>>>      Jamie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry
>>>>>(University of California Press).
>>>>>>    http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random
>House
>>>>>Book of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual
anthology
>>so
>>>>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the
>United
>>>>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>>>English.
>>>>>There is nothing else like it."   John Palattella in The
>>>>>Nation
>>>>>>  Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry
>>>>>(University of California Press).
>>>>>>  http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random
House
>>>>Book
>>>>>of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology so
>>>>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the
>United
>>>>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>>>English.
>>>>>There is nothing else like it."   John Palattella in The
>>>>>Nation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>